Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38478485›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Machine learning algorithm for ventilator mode selection, pressure and volume control.

Anitha T, Gopu G, Arun Mozhi Devan P, Maher Assaad

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anitha TDepartment of Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering, Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0865-2746
Gopu GDepartment of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Arun Mozhi Devan PDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-0231-5113
Maher AssaadDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.
Ajman University · AEUniversiti Teknologi Petronas · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mechanical ventilation techniques are vital for preserving individuals with a serious condition lives in the prolonged hospitalization unit. Nevertheless, an imbalance amid the hospitalized people demands and the respiratory structure could cause to inconsistencies in the patient's inhalation. To tackle this problem, this study presents an Iterative Learning PID Controller (ILC-PID), a unique current cycle feedback type controller that helps in gaining the correct pressure and volume. The paper also offers a clear and complete examination of the primarily efficient neural approach for generating optimal inhalation strategies. Moreover, machine learning-based classifiers are used to evaluate the precision and performance of the ILC-PID controller. These classifiers able to forecast and choose the perfect type for various inhalation modes, eliminating the likelihood that patients will require mechanical ventilation. In pressure control, the suggested accurate neural categorization exhibited an average accuracy rate of 88.2% in continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) mode and 91.7% in proportional assist ventilation (PAV) mode while comparing with the other classifiers like ensemble classifier has reduced accuracy rate of 69.5% in CPAP mode and also 71.7% in PAV mode. An average accuracy of 78.9% rate in other classifiers compared to neutral network in CPAP. The neural model had an typical range of 81.6% in CPAP mode and 84.59% in PAV mode for 20 cm H2O of volume created by the neural network classifier in the volume investigation. Compared to the other classifiers, an average of 72.17% was in CPAP mode, and 77.83% was in PAV mode in volume control. Different approaches, such as decision trees, optimizable Bayes trees, naive Bayes trees, nearest neighbour trees, and an ensemble of trees, were also evaluated regarding the accuracy by confusion matrix concept, training duration, specificity, sensitivity, and F1 score.

Indexed as

Respiration, ArtificialVentilators, MechanicalAlgorithmsBayes TheoremContinuous Positive Airway PressureHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID38478485
PMCPMC10936794
OpenAlexW4392747325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.